Bell S J, Borlase B C, Swails W, Dascoulias K, Ainsley B, Forse R A
Deaconess Hospital, Boston, MA 02215.
J Am Diet Assoc. 1994 Apr;94(4):414-9. doi: 10.1016/0002-8223(94)90097-3.
Enteral feeding has unique metabolic and immune advantages. This article describes the successful use of enteral nutrition, alone or in combination with parenteral feeding, in a tertiary-care hospital. Study participants were 89 patients who received enteral feeding during a 6-month period. These critically ill patients (ranging in age from 55 to 71 years) had severity of illness levels of 7 to 25 according to the Acute Physiologic and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) system and lengths of hospital stay from 27 to 73 days. Mortality was as high as 50% in patients with liver disease (nonmalignant), 35% in patients with cardiothoracic and vascular diseases, and 17% in patients with cancer and other diseases. Despite the severity of illness, patients met their energy and protein intake goals through enteral or combined feeding with total parenteral nutrition. Serial weights (ie, obtained weekly) and serum albumin concentrations did not improve during hospitalization. Complications related to enteral feeding were minimal (< 17% incidence). Differences were noted between survivors and nonsurvivors: nonsurvivors had lower serum albumin concentrations at the time of admission, had longer hospitalizations, and required total parenteral nutrition for more days than the survivors. Nonetheless, even with extremely sick patients, provision of enteral nutrition can be successful using the administration techniques we describe. Enteral nutrition could best be provided by beginning at a slow rate (10 c3/hour), inserting the feeding tube past the pylorus, and feeding according to sensible energy goals (25 kcal/kg of body weight), and using elemental then polymeric formulas.
